Clark v. State

── Clark v. State ── Court: Supreme Court of Georgia Date: June 02, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion. In the Supreme Court of Georgia No. S26A0062 Cleveland Clark v. The State On Appeal from the Superior Court of Fulton County No. 48640 Decided: June 2, 2026 ELLINGTON, Justice. Cleveland Clark appeals his convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the April 2000 murder-for- hire of Michelle Reid Rai. 1 Clark asserts on appeal that his trial 1 Michelle Rai was killed on April 26, 2000, and on September 22, 2006, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Clark, along with Chiman Rai, Carl V. Clark, Herbert Green, and Willie Fred Evans, on one count of malice murder (Count 1), two counts of felony murder (Counts 2 & 3), aggravated assault (Count 4), burglary (Count 5), possession of a knife during the commission of a felony (Count 6), and conspiracy to commit a crime (Count 7), and indicted Cleveland Clark alone for cruelty to children in the first degree (Count 8). Count 8 of the indictment was dead docketed prior to trial, and Clark was tried separately on the remaining counts from May 28 to July 2, 2009. The jury found Clark guilty on Counts 1 through 7 on June 26, 2009, and on July 2, 2009, in the sentencing phase of the trial, the jury recommended a sentence of death on Count 1, after finding the existence of five aggravating factors. The same day, the trial court sentenced Clark to death on Count 1 and further sen- tenced him to 20 years in prison on Count 5, to run consecutively to Count 1; five years in prison on Count 6, to run consecutively to Count 1; and ten years in prison on Count 7, to run consecutively to Count 5. Counts 2 and 3 were counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance, which prejudiced his defense; that the trial court’s refusal to grant a con- tinuance all but guaranteed that Clark’s attorneys could not ren- der constitutionally effective assistance of counsel; and that the trial court violated Clark’s right not to be tried while incompetent. Clark asserts that he is entitled to a new trial on these grounds, but if we determine that the record below is insufficiently devel- oped on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, he asks that we remand this case with instructions that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Because Clark was represented by counsel from the same public defender’s office from the time of his arrest until the time he filed his notice of appeal, this appel- late proceeding represents Clark’s first opportunity to raise his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and we remand this case for an evidentiary hearing on that issue. The evidence at Clark’s trial showed the following. vacated by operation of law, and Count 4 was merged into Count 1. Clark filed a general motion for new trial on July 2, 2009, which was amended on October 1, 2014, and supplemented on September 2, 2015. After hea